Are There Actual 'Fundamentals" In Theology for Fundamentalists?

Listen, I don't know if you belong to a cult or not. But just saying that you belong to a church is meaningless. Mormons say that they belong to churches. Jehovah's Witnesses call their establishments churches. Jim Jones called his gathering a church.

So saying, "I don't belong to a cult, I belong to a church," doesn't make it so.

I am not saying you do belong to a cult- I don't know.

But I am saying your reprehensible comments about the NIV and by proxy the NIV translators being ANTICHRIST (and all the other horrible things you said) are indicative of cult like behavior.

And I am saying that when you teach that the KJVO is inspired itself- that the translation is inspired and as reliable as the original documents; and when you say that no one else has a reliable translation- I am saying that that is indicative of heresy. This is because it denies an essential of the Christian Faith (the doctrine of inspiration) and it is TERRIBLY divisive (note that both must be true and present for it to be heresy- the GOSPEL s extremely divisive). It may not QUITE be heresy (I think it is) but it is most ASSUREDLY knocking on the door of it.

I am not sure if you believe the following or not, but those who take it a step further and call ALL other English versions perversions, and say the KJV is AS inspired as the original documents, and say a person cannot be saved via the usage of ANY other version of the Scripture, and that the KJVO can actually be used to correct the originals, etc... I say with confidence that those who adhere to these doctrines are blatant heretics.

You can take this a number of ways. I recommend this one: consider that I might be right and that you ought to reexamine the movement of which you are a part and consider that they preach a number of extrabiblical doctrines which undermine the essentials of the Christian Faith- and when you see that I am right- RUN.. do not walk... RUN from that movement.

And then find one with clergy who know what they are talking about- a movement led by people who have the humility to submit their interpretations to the scrutiny of the Historic Christian Church- a movement led by people who do not preach new doctrines (like KJVO) but preach the faith that was once and for all delivered unto the saints.

 

First of all, I am not JW or Mormon or a Jim Jones follower, I am a Baptist. And we are not a cult or a "movement". The church I attend is identical in beliefs and practices as the SBC church I grew up in (before the SBC became liberal). My church is very normal and biblically sound.

Secondly, why do you refuse to realize that all IFB churches are not legalistic, Hyles camp type churches? Our pastor is not a tyrant, and we don't have those "extra biblical doctrines" that you speak of. There are 4 IFB churches in our area and only one of them is a Hyles camp, legalistic church. In our church women can and do wear pants, even the pastors wife. Most people use the KJV but you can use your NIV if you wish. Comparing the church I go to with these legalistic ones is prejudicial and just wrong.

And finally, I will not apologise for my stance on the NIV. There are too many places where the Deity of Christ has been minimalized for it to just be coincidental. I believe it was on purpose. Possibly it was done because the translators thought that making the message more gentle and easy to swallow would bring more people to salvation...I don't know....i am just trying to think of a respectable reason for belittling the Deity of Christ.

And, I most certainly have never said that people can only get saved using the KJV, that is pure nonsense, and a complete lie. Luke, you have an uncanny knack for accusing people of things without directly saying it. But if your purpose here was to accuse me of practicing this false doctrine then you need to reevaluate your own principles before you pass judgment on mine.

 

Luke, why do you say that KJVO is a "new doctrine"?

For 300 years the KJV was the accepted translation in English speaking churches. It wasn't until 100 years ago the Modern Versions came on the scene.

So which doctrine is new? Use of KJV? Or use of Modern Versions?

It appears to me that Modern Versions movement is the new doctrine.

John

 

I have not accused you of anything. I have consistently said things like "IF you believe this...." and "I don't KNOW if your church is a cult or not..."

Please try to read more thoroughly.

I do confess that I suspect that you are a member of a cult but I do not know enough about you or your church to accuse you of such. You may not be a member of a cult. As I have said repeatedly, I DON'T KNOW.

But I have made no accusations other than to say that your comments about the NIV are indicative of heresy.

Look up the word "indicative". It means that they INDICATE that you may be a heretic. It is not conclusive. But it is enough to cause me to suspect you as such. But since I do not KNOW, I have not accused you- just indicated that you say things that certainly raise questions.

With more information from you I may be able to conclude that you are indeed a heretic. But I will just share that with you in private messaging because there is a very good rule on baptistboard that prohibits calling into question these things on the public forum.

 

Because no significant Christian movement believed the KJVO heresy before about a 100 years ago.

That makes it brand spanking new.

That most, if not all, movements used the KJV for, as you say, 300 years (which is probably not perfectly accurate) is no argument for KJVO. It is an argument for the excellence of the KJV.

There is a big, big difference.

Just for the record- I absolutely ADORE the KJV. In fact, this may blow your mind, but it is BY FAR my translation of choice. I only preach from the KJV. It is all I read (I do use other versions to aid in study- but I love the way the KJV reads so devotionally I stick with it).

But I am not KJVO and I do not think I am KJVP because I know what most people mean when they call themselves KJVP and I do not fit in that category.

Most KJVP believe the TR is superior or they don't really have any confidence in any other versions or they are really KJVO but they don't want to be lumped in with the nut jobs like the Ruckmanites, etc... That's not me.

I simply LOVE the KJV. I have about 5 or so reasons for this I'd be glad to share.

But I am telling you that KJVO as it is most commonly preached is, imo, HERESY. And the people who have the horrible things to say about the NIV like you do are most often found, in my experience, in the ranks of these KJVO people.

 

Then you shouldn't even mention it at all. As I said you have a knack of accusing someone without directly saying it. IF YOU DONT KNOW THEN DONT SAY IT!!!!!!!

Why do you feel you have a right to conclude anything about me or anyone else? I believe the doctrine of Calvinism to have come straight from the pits of hell with the sole purpose of dividing the church leading people away from the truth of the Gospel. But I would never call you a heretic, why? Because even though I think you are mislead, I consider you a victim of being duped. i don't think you have any bad intentions with your dctrine, and i actually think you believe in it 100%, but that does NOT make you a heretic.

It is the same with me. I believe my doctrine just as strongly as you do yours. You should respect my beliefs enough to not even imply that I might be heretic.

I suppose that we will both have to stand before God before we find out who is right. But you don't have to try to tear down every man that you disagree with while we are here on earth.

Calm down Luke, you are not God's personally appointed enforcer.

John

 

An accusation by definition cannot be a question. I can QUESTION your beliefs at any point after which you have published them for me and the public to see.

I don't need your permission to question or scrutinize beliefs that you promote publicly. Once you launch them out there, they are fair game.

If you don't want to be questioned or face accusations for your beliefs, keep them to yourself.

If you are confident in your beliefs then severe scrutiny will be welcomed by you rather than repelled vociferously as you are now doing.

It is WRONG for Christians NOT to fiercely scrutinize any belief that has been promoted in the market place of ideals which seems to undermine the Faith.

Since it would be wrong, and I believe sin, to fail to question your beliefs that seem to undermine the historic Christian Faith (i. e. what the Body of Christ has always believed the Bible teaches), I have decided to reject your request with all vehemence.

God willing, so long as you promote these ideas, I will confront them. And not only you here, but everyone everywhere I find them.

And I call upon all other orthodox Christians who love the Truth to do the same.

 

Wrong- all Christians are.

In fact, I am arguing that the Word of God is VERY clear that it is sin for Christians NOT to be.

Now, the word "enforcer" may not be the best word, but what you apparently mean by it is what I contend all able Christians should be.

What you must mean by it is that I am not appointed by God to go around and confront and demolish arguments that I believe undermine the faith.

That is absolutely wrong.

Not only am I appointed by God to do this- ALL able Christians are appointed by God to do this.

If the hundreds of millions of Christians in this world would do just this we could turn the world upside down for Christ.

It is exactly this fear of hurting feelings, this confusion over what real humility is, this unbiblical idea that we should be tolerant (respectful was your term) of all ideas that is keeping us from turning the world upside down for Christ.

 

I would agree with you on this if you were talking about confronting enemies of Christ. But you are not dong that here on this boeard. Here you are tearing down fellow christians.

When I say we must be respectful of one another, I am talking about Christians being respectful of one another. I have no doubt that both you and me are saved and on our way to heaven. Free will is something that we diasagree on, and when we get to heaven I suppose we find out who was right, but our disagreement will not keep either one of from getting there. You have not cornered the market on biblical understanding, and I highly doubt that your doctrines are 100% without error, and that goes for my doctrines too. I don't believe anyone is 100% correct in their understanding of the Bible.

So yes, I agree, we need to be the enforcer and defender when it comes to the enemies of Christianity, but NOT to other Christians.

On this you are 100% in error.

John

 

Amen! :thumbs:

Argue as hard as you like, Luke; but show respect for your brothers in Chrsit.

Steve

 

The issue has to do with the arguments not the person. I am fine with respecting the person. I refuse, absolutely refuse, to offer respect to arguments that I feel undermined the faith. You should also refuse to render respect to arguments that undermine the faith. in fact you have no option in this but to confront such arguments. And not to do so lightly or sweetly. The Bible has told us how we are to confront darkness. You don't get to improve upon the word of God, or do it some other way. You must do It the way god says to do it. We do not look to Dale Carnegie for our methodology. We look to the word of God. We believe God knows better than Dale Carnegie. We believe God knows better than our current culture. So we look to God to tell us how to confront darkness. Add God said that we are to demolish such arguments as those that seeking the truth and those like him promote.

 

I "feel" that Calvinism undermines the faith, but I don't rant about you being in "darkness". You don't get it do you? You have no right whatsoever to state that I am in "darkness", if I was arrogant and thought that I knew everything there is to know about theology, then I could make the same argument about you and Calvinism. I "feel" that it is you that is in "darkness" and drowning in your own arrogance, because you think that everything you believe is 100% without error and that everyone that you disagree with is the enemy.

Then you said: " Add God said that we are to demolish such arguments as those that seeking the truth and those like him promote"

Show me one thing that me and those "like me" promote that God has told you to demolish.

Luke, your pride, your arrogance, and your determination to demolish fellow believers because they have a different interpretation of the scriptures is what needs to be confronted....but by you yourself, noone else can do it for you.

Has it ever occured to you that just maybe it is your interpretation of scripture that is in "darkness'?

Again, please tell me what arguments of me and those like me has God instructed you to demolish.

John

 

The ESV and NIV line-up together in more cases than most people think.

A great deal of interpretational glosses wound up in the text of the KJV and NKJV. For the ease of clear English what is said is added. MY,my --it is not the major issue you have blown it up to be.

The following are just a few I found that use the sins of in their renderings:
Tyndale (1526),Coverdale,Bishop's,Geneva,Wycliffe (1395).

You really have to find some bigger fish to fry Steve.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

In reference to 1 John 2:2 --this is from NET notes:Many translations supply an understood repetition of the word "sins" here,thus:"but also for the sins of the whole world."

 

Contradictory,aren't you John?

 

Not at all, I am just demonstrating the irony between what he says he believes and what he actually does.

John

 

Well,for starters I know that God doesn't appreciate ungodliness that you push here on the BB with statements like the following which mods have apparently turned a blind toward:

The translators of the NIV are against Christ. They are truly Anti-Christ.

They [NIV translators] don't want you to surrender your life to His Lordship. They want you to think that you can accept and receive Jesus as your savior for 'fire insurance,' to keep you from hell,without receiving Him as your Lord.

NIV undermines His Deity.

The NIV's statement is heresy.

 

It is my opinion that the NIV is ungodly, it is your opinion that I am ungodly...fine.

But where does the Bible say that you should rebuke me and demolish my beliefs/opinion about the NIV? How can you prove your statement that I am ungodly with scripture?

It is simply your opinion, it is not in the Bible.

And how do you "know" what God appreciates? Maybe He appreciates my rejection of the NIV since it diminishes the Deity of Christ.

John

 

You contend that a translation of the Word of God is ungodly. You are being absurd and sinful.

You go around with seeming impunity saying disgraceful things about an honored translation of the Word of God calling it an abomination. And yet you have the gall to claim your innocence. You take the cake John.

You routinely disregard rules of the BB which you said you would abide by in becoming a member. Therefore you have violated the ninth commandment for starters.

The Lord doesn't fight with Himself. How foolish you are to maintain that silly stance. He wants those who profess to be believers to love His Word expressed in a multitude of translations. The NIV is a prominent one. Many have been converted under the reading/hearing of it.

Steve,who is no fan of the NIV, already told you that it is better at passages proclaiming the Deity of the Lord than is the KJV. But I'm sure you won't acknowlege the truthfulness of that. That would do damage to your agenda.

 

You are quite the hypocrite. You think it is perfectly acceptable to vilify the NIV translators with abusive language --just because they aren't members of the BB? So keep your blind eyes shut as you disparage the NIV and its translators. Your inconsistency is a marvel to behold.

 

I have been showing you this whole time.

And I don't think I have SAID that you yourself are most assuredly in darkness. I admit that I suspect it... since you press the matter. But what I condemn is not persons on here- I condemn ideals. Specifically I condemn those ideals that undermine the Faith.

arguments- not believers. I set out to demolish arguments. That's what the Word of God commands me and ALL able Christians to do.

It is not an option. I don't get to be sweet when God said to DEMOLISH.

But it is ARGUMENTS I set out to demolish- not people.

Every Christian is in a war between darkness and light. The enemy is not flesh and blood (people). The enemy is ideals, philosophies and arguments that undermine the Faith.

II Corinthians 10:5
New International Version (©1984)
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Yes. I used to believe very much like you do. It was my willingness to consider that it might be me that was in darkness that was instrumental in my coming to the light on these matters.